Can I sue my insurance company for bad faith in Texas without proving breach of contract?
This question has been addressed in 2 Texas court opinions:
David and Rebecca Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association
COA01 — February 19, 2026
In *Bowen v. Texas Fair Plan Association*, homeowners sued their insurance provider following a claim denial. The insurer filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and the homeowners responded with affidavits from two experts. However, the homeowners had previously filed an amended expert designation that omitted these specific experts. The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, determining that an amended designation supersedes previous lists; by omitting the experts, the homeowners effectively de-designated them. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the expert affidavits and affirming a take-nothing summary judgment, as the remaining evidence was unauthenticated and insufficient to create a fact issue.
Litigation Takeaway
“Always cross-reference your summary judgment evidence with your most recent Rule 194.2 expert designations; amending your witness list to "clean up" for trial can accidentally de-designate the experts you need to survive a no-evidence motion, resulting in the exclusion of their testimony.”
In re Allied Trust Insurance Company
COA01 — February 24, 2026
In an insurance dispute with significant implications for family law discovery, the First Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief after a trial court refused to abate a lawsuit for alleged failure to satisfy conditions precedent. While the insurer argued that an examination under oath (EUO) was a mandatory prerequisite to litigation, the respondent claimed her severe PTSD necessitated a remote (Zoom) format, which the insurer refused. The court analyzed whether a 'total failure' to comply had occurred and held that because there were unresolved factual disputes regarding the reasonableness of the insurer's demands and the format of the performance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the abatement.
Litigation Takeaway
“To successfully abate a case for non-compliance, you must first secure a court order defining the 'parameters of performance'; mere disagreement over the format of discovery (such as in-person vs. Zoom for a traumatized party) creates a factual dispute that prevents abatement from becoming mandatory.”